Date of filing: 20-10-2016 Date of disposal : 21-02-2022
Complainant : Priyanka Nayak W/o Pramod Kumar Nayak, aged about 43 years, by faith Hindu, by occupation House wife, resident of 2A/20 Aryavat Avenue, B-Zone, P.O.- Durgapur-05, P.S.- Durgapur, District- Burdwan, Pin – 713205.
Opposite Parties : 1. Digitech Service, unit of Reliance ResQ represented by its Manager, having its office at P 270, Bangar Avenue, Block-B, P.S. Durgapur, District- Burdwan, Pin -713205
.
2. RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED, represented by its Proprictor, having its office at Fortune Plaza, 1st Floor Nachan Road, Benachati, District- Burdwan, Durgapur- 713213
3. Hewlett Packard ( HP) India Sales Pvt. Ltd. represented by its Director, having its Office at 8 1st Floor, D L F IT Park, Tower C, Block A F, Major Arterial Road, Kolkata- 700156.
Present :
Hon’ble President : Mr. Md. Muizzuddeen.
Hon’ble Member : Nivedita Ghosh.
Hon’ble Member: Sailaranjan Das
Appeared for the complainant : Ld. Advocate Suvro Chakraborty.
Appeared for the O.P. : Ld. Advocate Sumanta Kumar Modal.
FINAL ORDER
On 20-102016 the complainant has filed this application U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant purchased a computer (Desk Top) and a Printer from the opposite party no. 2 on 27-09-2014. The Model No. of the computer is HP18-1310in, EAN No. 888182617670 and product serial no. was 50M41501X5. The consideration amount of the computer was Rs. 28,499/- . Due to financial stringency she purchased the same in finance with BAJAJ Finance. As of the installments of the financer have been fully paid by her, the financer has not been incorporated in this complaint as a party. At the time of purchase of said computer she got warrantee from the Opposite Party No. 1 for one year and also R.C.P. of 2 years from the opposite party no. 2 which was valid from 22-09-2015 to 27-09-2017 and the opposite party no. 2 provided warrantee card containing the validity of the Desk Top and the complainant paid Rs. 4054/- to the opposite party no. 2 for extending warrantee. That after the purchasing the Desk Top it was performing rightly, but suddenly Desk Top started malfunctioning and begin to give trouble to her while she using it. As such she submitted the Desk Top before the opposite party no. 2 for sending the same before the Customer Care Service (Opposite Party No. 1) for repairing on 17-05-2016. The Opposite party no.1 issued a job sheet bearing no. 8005651799 in favour of her at the time of receiving the computer from the complainant. The opposite party no.1 told her that Port of LAN is in damaged condition and asked her for receiving the same after 15 days from them. From the datge of submit of the said Desk Top the O.P. No. – 1 instead of repairing or returning the same to her, retained the same before them and the complainant made several communications and requests to Opposite party no. 1 and asked for returning the computer to her after repairing , but failed. The complainant sent letter dated 14-06-2016 to the opposite party no. 2 through registered post and a mail dated 17-06-2016 to the opposite party no. 1. On 19-06-2016 she received a mail from the end of the opposite party no. – 1 and came to learn that the O.P. No. 1 wanted to settle the matter by paying Rs. 10886/- as the product is not in repairable condition. Thereafter the complainant sent another letter dated 14-07-2016 to the O.P. No. 2 and the Consumer Affairs Departmental of Durgapur. On 08-07-2016 the complainant again received a mail from the end of the O.P. No. 1 and came to learn that the O.P. No. 1 wanted to settle the matter by paying Rs. 17691/- to the complainant. It is pertinent to note that the daughter of the complainant is a student of BBA and the complainant purchased the said computer for the purpose of education of her daughter, but due to conduct of the party no. 1 and 2 her daughter also suffered a lot because for the course of BBA computer is necessary. The Consumer Affairs Department, Durgapur arranged a tripartite meeting and both the complainant and the opposite party 1 & 2 attended the said meeting. And the complainant in the said meeting gave proposal to the O.P. NO. 1 & 2 if they would pay total consideration amount i.e. Rs. 28499/- to her then she would settle the matter. Though the O.P. No. 1 & 2 gave consent to that proposal and put their signature but did not bother to keep the same. As such, the complainant had been completed to file this case. Till date of filing of this complaint the computer was in the custody of the opposite party. Moreover, the opposite parties are dragging the matter till now due to which the complainant is suffering mentally, physically and economically and the opposite parties are clearly acts of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and they liable to compensate the complainant.
Upon this document the complainant prayed to pass necessary order by directing the opposite parties to pay sum of Rs. 28499/- to the complainant to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and to direct the opposite parties to pay Rupees one lac towards mental pain and agony and harassment as compensation and to direct them to pay Rs. 20000/- as litigation cost.
In view of Order dated 19-12-2016 the case is being run ex parte against the O.P. as notice was served upon him but he did not appear.
On 04-04-2018 the order was passed to the effect that the case is run ex parte against the O.P. No. 1 as he was did not bar with notice served upon him.
The O.P. No. 2 has contested the case by filing written Version denying all the material allegations containing inter alia that the complainant has not cause of action and that the complainant is not maintainable in its present Forum and that the complaint is barred under principle of Estoppel, weaver acquiescence and that the complaint is barred by limitation.
A specific case of the O.P. No. 2 is that this O.P. No. 2 carries on retail business and it does not carry any manufacturing business. It sells Manufacture’s products of authorized brands and alleged Desk Top which is a product of O.P. No. 1 a reputed company has also been sold by this O.P. to the complainant and the said product was O.K. in all respect and in good condition at the time of sell. Like many other products, specifically electronics product , this O.P. has sold the said Desk Top after being displayed which is reflecting in the tax invoice as “ DEMO GIVEN’ so at the time of selling the Desk Top was also functioning properly and the complainant has purchased the Desk Top after satisfying that it was functioning properly. After a few days of purchase, the complainant approached before these OPs and informed about alleged defects. This O.P. No. 2 immediately extended their co-operation. O.P. No. 2 is always ready to co-operate with the complainant. So, to that effect complainant has been informed to redress her grievance by settling the amount as per terms and conditions of R.C.P. Thee is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. No. 2 as such the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this O.P. No. 2 as prayed for
Upon this background the O.P. No. 2 prayed for disposal of the case.
DECISION AS REASONS
In order to prove the case the complainant has adduced evidence on Affidavit and the O.P. No. – 2 filed questionnaire to that evidence on Affidavit. The complainant also submitted replies of the aid questionnaire. The complainant also submitted Xerox copies of the documents.
On 02-04-2022 on the prayer of the O.P. No. – 2 his Written Version supported by Affidavit has been treated as evidence on Affidavit on his behalf and in this way O.P. No. – 2 tried to prove his case and to disprove the case of the complainant.
The complainant on 15-02-2022 was exempted to file any questionnaire against the said evidence of the O.P. No. 2 as per his prayer by petition.
The Ld. Advocate of both sides advanced their arguments in this case.
It is case of the complainant that on 27-09-2014 she purchased a computer designed as HP18-1310in EAN No. 888182617670 and the product serial no. was 50M41501X5 on consideration amount of Rs. 28499/- . The complainant got warranty from the opposite party no.- 1 for one year and also R.C.P. of 2 years from the opposite party no. – 2 which was valid from 27-09-2015 to 27-09-2017 and her warranty period was extended after paying Rs. 4054/- towards O.P. No. 2 by the complainant and the O.P. No. – 2 also provided warranty card containing the validity dates of the Desk Top. It is also the case of the complainant that suddenly the Desk Top started mal functioning and begin to give trouble to her while she using it. As such, she submitted the Desk Top before the O.P. No. – 2 for sending the same to Customer Care Service (O.P. No. – 1 ) for repairing on 17-05-2016 and O.P. No. 1 had issued a Job Sheet bearing no. 8005651799 in favour of the complainant along with information that the part of LAN was in damaged condition and she was asked to take back said set after 15 days from them. It is also the case of the complainant that instead of repairing or returning the computer the O.P. No. – 1 retained the same and the complainant made several communications and requested O.P. No. – 1 and 2 for returning the same after repairing but failed. In this connection, complainant received letter dated 14-06-2016 and a mail dated 19-06-2016 from the O.P. No. 2 and O.P. No. – 1 respectively and subsequently, the O.P. No. – 1 wanted to settle the matter by paying Rs. 10886/- as the product is not in returnable condition. The complainant informed the matter to the Consumer Affairs Department, Durgapur and on 08-07-2016 she received a mail from the end of the O.P. No. – 1 that the O.P. No. – 2 wanted to settle the matter by paying Rs. 17691/- and there was a meeting in between the O.P. No. -1 and O.P. No. -2 about the matter and the complainant gave a proposal to them that if they would pay the total consideration amount of Rs. 28499/- to her then she would settle the matter and the opposite parties gave consent to that proposal and put their signature, but they did not bother to keep the same.
The complainant purchased the said computer for the purpose of education of her daughter but due to conducts of them her daughter also suffered a lot because it was necessary for the course of BBA. For the above facts and reason the complainant suffered mentally, physically and economically. These facts of the complainant had corroborated by the evidence on Affidavit by her. As the Written Version filed by the O.P. No. – 2 has been treated as evidence on Affidavit, the Written Version and the evidence are the same which denied of the material allegation of the complainant adduced by evidence on Affidavit and the specific case as narrated by the O.P. No. – 2 for his Written Versions in the Para – 12 has been automatically corroborated. It is the evidence of the O.P. No. 2 that the O.P. No. 2 carries on retail business and it does not carry any manufacturing business. It sells multifarious products of various brands and it is also admitted in his evidence that the alleged Desk Top which is a product of O.P. NO. 3 , a reputed company has also been sold by this O.P. to the complainant and the said product was O.K. in all respect and in good condition at that time. At the time of selling the computer was also functioning properly and after satisfying the same the complainant purchased the same and after a few days of purchase, the complainant purchased the same and after a few days of purchase, the complainant bought about the alleged defects before them and the this O.P. then and then extended his co-operation and he is always ready to co-operate with her and for that the complainant has been informed to redress her grievance by settling the amount of as per terms and conditions of the RCP.
From the evidences of both sides it is crystal clear there is no dispute in purchasing the computer ( Desk Top ) on consideration amount of Rs. 28499/- and it is not disputed that there was a defect in the said Desk Top for which the meeting was held in between O.P. NO. – 1 and O.P. NO. – 2 and the complainant for settling the dispute. But according to evidence of the complainant in the meeting held in between O.P. NO. 1 & 2 and the complainant she gave a proposal that if they would pay the total consideration amount of Rs. 28499/- to her then she would settle the matter. And the opposite party No. 1 & 2 gave consent to that proposal and put the signature, but did not bother to keep the same. Furthermore, it is also evidence on the part of the complainant that as the product was not in repairable condition the O.P. No. – 1 wanted to settle the matter by paying Rs. 10886/- and subsequently, he was wanted to settle the matter by paying Rs. 17691/- but this evidence has not discarded by the O.P. No. 1. During the trial as because he did not contest the case and the case has been heard ex parte against him. Accordingly, it can be presumed that the evidence of the complainant is reliable and the product ( Desk Top ) was not in repairable condition i.e. his product was defective.
O.P. No. 2 in his W/V stated that he only carries on retail business and does not carry manufacturing business and he sells the Desk Top-in-question to the complainant which was O.K. in all respect at the time of sell and after a few days of purchase the complainant approached before the opposite parties and informed about alleged defects. The O.P. No. – 2 is always ready to co-operate with the complainant and informed the complainant to redress her grievance by settling the amount as per terms and conditions of R.C.P. From this evidence of the O.P. No. – 2 it is clear that the O.P. No. – 2 was also willing to settle the dispute for redressing the grievance of the complainant. But both the O.P. No. – 1 and O.P. No. – 2 did not come to the said settlements as per their willingness and this evidence of the O.P. No. – 2 supported i.e. Desk Top-in-question was not in good condition subsequently. Even O.P. No. – 1 and O.P. NO. – 2 did not try to remove defects of the Desk Top-in-question or to replacing the same by new one or they did not settle the dispute by way of payment of consideration money of Rs. 28999/- to the complainant and as such the complainant was suffered mentally and economically loss. Therefore, it can be said that there was an deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No.- 1 and O.P. No. – 2.
O.P. No.- 1 gave a mail to the complainant which was received by her on 08-07-2016 admitted that the Desk Top was in non-returnable condition due to spare parts is not available. But the complainant did not accept the same. On the other hand the complainant stated that Opposite party No. 1 & 2 gave consent to her proposal to the effect that if they would pay the total consideration amount of Rs. 28499/- to her then she would settle the matter and O.P. No. 1 & 2 put their signature but the complainant failed to produce the said document where the O.P. No. 1 & 2 put their signature. By non-production of the said document the case of the complainant cannot be washed away as otherwise the complainant has been able to prove her case that there was a deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No. 1 & 2.
Considering the above forgoing facts and circumstances and material on record we are of opinion that the complainant has been able to prove her case against the opposite parties and she is entitled to get relief in this case. She is also entitled to get compensation for suffering mental pain and agony for a long period since file the case. As a result, the case succeeds.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
That this case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P. No. 1 & 2 but ex-parte against the O.P. No. 1 & 3, but without any cost. The complainant is entitled to get refund of consideration money of Rs. 28499/- by replacing the computer ( Desk Top ) from O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No.- 2. She is also entitled to get Rs. 50000 ( Rupees fifty thousands ) as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment. She is also entitled to get litigation cost of Rs. 10000 (Rupees ten thousands ) only. The O.P. No. – 1 and O.P. No. – 2 are jointly and severely to pay the said amount to the complainant. The O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. – 2 are directly to pay Rs. 28409/- + 50000/- + 10000 to the complainant by Account Payee Cheque jointly and severely within one month from the date of this order failing which the said amount will carry interest @ 10% p.a. till realization.
Dictated & Corrected by me: (Md. Muizzuddeen)
President
(Md. Muizzuddeen) D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman
President
D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman
(Nivedita Ghosh.) (Sailaranjan Das)
Member Member D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman.
